9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-M, 24-Aa, 41-M, 42-M, 31, 39, 40, 45-M, 149-Da, 161-B, 25-B, 161-M total area 1.127 hectares of village Shivlalpur, Tehsil, Kashipur Ramnagar, District Nainital in the No. 50, dated 10-6-2003 issued for the units carrying on the industrial activities in non-industrial areas for availing all the fiscal benefits as have been notified in the Government Notification No. 1 (10)/2001-NER, dated 7-1-2003 and Notification No. 49/2003, dated 10-6-2003 and Notification No. 50/2003, dated 10-6-2003. (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the excise exemption to the petitioner in pursuance to the Notification No. 01(10)/2001-NER, dated 7-1-2003 read with the Notification No. 50/2003, dated 10-6-2003." 3. Writ Petition (MB) No. 2 of 2015 is also a writ petition filed by the very same petitioner and it was, originally, numbered as Writ Petition (MS) No. 307 of 2013. It was re-numbered as Writ Petition (MB) No. 2 of 2015, obviously, after the reference made to the Division Bench by the Learned Single Judge. The prayers sought in the said writ petition are as follows : "(I) Issue a writ, order or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and cleared from a unit in the State of Uttarakhand for a period of 10 years. Industrial units, which are already in existence and which had undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in their installed capacity by not less than 25 per cent on or after the 7th day of January, 2003, were also entitled to the exemption. Petitioner wrote to the Central Excise Department vide letter dated 27-11-2003 for availing the benefit of exemption in the capacity as existing unit. The Excise Department wrote letter dated 26-6-2003 (Annexure No. 7) to the petitioner. It reads as follows : "CENTRAL EXCISE RANGE-II, KASHIPUR C. No. 20-CE/KPR-II/Exemption/03/207 Dated 26-6-2003 To, M/s Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd., Ram Nagar, District Nainital. Dear Sir, Subject :- Exemption provided to the Industries in the State of Uttaranchal as per Notification Nos. 49/2003 and 50/2003, dated 10-6-2003 - Reg. The Govt. of India vide the aforesaid Notifications has granted exemption from the Central Excise duty to the Industries of Uttaranchal subject to the fulfilment of the conditions as laid down in the said Notification. In this regard, you are requested to intimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ramnagar, District-Nainital (Uttarakhand). Dear Sirs, Subject : Availment of exemption under notification No. 49/2003- C.E., dated 10-6-2003-C/Reg. Please refer to your declaration dated 1-12-2009 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division, Haldwani, a copy of which received in the Range Office on 3-12-2009, regarding exercise of option to avail of exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-3-2003. In this context, you are requested to submit the self attested copies of the following documents in duplicate for scrutiny of your case in respect of availment of exemption under notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-3-2003 :- 1. Chartered Engineer Certificate of substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% as per requirement of the said notification. 2. Balance Sheet (in two sets) of the last five year i.e. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 indicating the licensed capacity and installed capacity of your unit prior to undertaking the said exemption. 3. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; We are proposing to avail the exemption provided under the Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. The exemption provided in this Notification is for the new unit set up or got substantial expansion in the State of Uttarakhand, which manufacture the goods specified in the Schedule annexed in this Notification. 2. We wish to bring to your notice that both, the Notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 and Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 have been issued so as to promote industrial development in the State of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh under the Industrial Policy 2003. The Industrial Policy seeks to promote forest based industries and particularly States that there is excellent potential for the development of forest resources based industries in the State. The policy further state that it seeks to encourage non-timber based industries and includes plywood/flush boards. The raw material used by us is poplar wood, eucalyptus and other soft woods for the manufacture of plywood/flush boards. Thus, the products manufactured by us are non-timber based forest products as stated in the policy and eligible for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igible to claim exemption under the Notification No. 49/2003 also irrespective of my right to claim the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003. Therefore, the present application has been filed for claiming exemption under Notification No. 49/2003. Thanking You, Yours Faithfully Dated 27-1-2010 Place : Ramnagar For Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. (Managing Director) Enclosed : Copy of State Industrial Policy of Uttaranchal 2003 Copy To : - The Superintendent Central Excise, Range-II, Kashipur." v. Petitioner has also produced letter dated 29-1-2010 written by the petitioner to the Superintendent, Central Excise, purporting to produce various documents, including the Chareted Engineer Certificate, Balance Sheets from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, Chartered Accountant Certificate, Bill of Plant and Machinery, Registry Papers, Khasra Khatauni Papers and details of Plant and Machinery before exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he units and Khasra Numbers in Annexure-TT to the Notification. Accordingly, fate of the present writ petitioner would be similar to that of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005. We accordingly dispose of this writ petition in the light of our judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 628 of 2005. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be informed of the outcome of the representation made by it within six weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon Revenue Secretary, Government of India. We make it absolutely clear that although there are pleadings to the effect that the petitioner has made substantial expansion in terms of the policy in question, but we have not gone into that aspect of the matter." viii. It is necessary to refer to the judgment dated 21-12-2010 passed in Writ Petition (MB) No. 628 of 2005, which is referred to in the said judgment and on the basis of which the said writ petition was disposed of. It reads as follows : "Review Application No. 81 of 2006 On 20th April 2006, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 263 of 2005 was finally decided by a Division Bench of this Court on the basis of submission, said to have been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion, therefore, is whether an existing industrial unit, situated in an industrial estate located in Annexure-I to the policy, could ask for the benefits under the said policy. In order to ask for the benefits under the policy, the unit concerned was required to show that it has made substantial expansion. Since what would be substantial expansion had not been indicated in the policy, there would always be dispute whether the unit concerned has discharged its obligations under the policy in order to take advantage or benefits thereunder. In substance, therefore, the conclusion would be that the policy dated 7th January 2003, in so far as existing industrial units are concerned, was not conclusive. The same would become conclusive and, accordingly, would become enforceable, only when further steps have been taken by amending Acts/Rules/Notifications, etc. or by issuing necessary instructions for giving effect to the decision contained in the policy. 2. The policy was given effect to and was made conclusive on 10th June, 2003, when an exemption notification was made and published. In that, it was indicated that an existing industrial unit must expand to not less than 25% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification dated 19th May, 2005, it transpired that thereby notification dated 10th June, 2003 was amended. While, however, amending the said notification dated 10th June, 2003, Annexure-II to the notification dated 10th June, 2003 was retained, showing industrial estates situated at Khasra numbers, Tehsils, districts and the State, in which if an industry is in existence, on substantial expansion thereof, or a new industry will be entitled to the benefit of the said policy, but at the same time a new annexure, being Annexure-III, was added to the Notification dated 10th June, 2003 giving similar such particulars of the industrial estates, where only on setting up of new industries, benefit of the policy would be available. It was contended that in Annexure-III, the Khasra numbers, pertaining to the industry of the petitioner situated in Tehsil : Kotdwar, District : Pauri Garhwal, State of Uttarakhand, was mentioned. It is the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that a mandamus should, in the circumstances, be issued to rectify the original mistake, as was committed in Annexure-II to the notification dated 10th June, 2003 or to issue a direction for issuance of an appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vantage of the policy in question. 4. Assuming, as has been canvassed before us, that the State of Uttarakhand at the time of furnishing particulars to denote the subject industrial estates, by mistake omitted to include Khasra Nos. 60(d) and 61 and later on realizing the said mistake, wanted to incorporate the same in the notification dated 10th June, 2003, but the fact remains that the request of the State Government has not been acceded to by the Central Government and, accordingly, the same has not been incorporated in Annexure-II to the notification dated 10th June, 2003. It is not the contention of the Central Government that it made a mistake. As would be evident from the judgment of this Court dated 3rd March, 2005, the Central Government, though may have had conceded that there had been mistake on the part of the State Government, but, nevertheless, it never contended that there was any mistake on its part in the matter of making the notification dated 10th June, 2003. Therefore, even if on the basis of mistake committed by the State Government the notification dated 10th June, 2003 had been made by the Central Government, the question is, can the writ Court rectify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of service of a copy of this order upon Revenue Secretary, Government of India. We make it absolutely clear that, although there are pleadings to the effect that the petitioner has made substantial expansion in terms of the policy in question, but we have not gone into that aspect of the matter." ix. Thereafter, it appears that, vide order dated 5th July, 2011 (Annexure No. 23), which is impugned as prayer No. 1, petitioner was communicated the reasons as to why the petitioner was not given the benefit of the notification. It reads as follows : "F. No. 336/08/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Tax Research Unit Room No. 146-1, North Block New Delhi dated 5th July, 2011 To M/s Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 3, Vill. Shivlalpur, PO Ramnagar, Nainital Uttarakhand. Sir, Subject : Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No. 542 (MB) of 2005 by M/s. Parvatiya Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. GOI & Others - Regarding. Please refer to order of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal dated 21-12-2010 in Writ Petition No. 542 (MB) of 2005 and your request for inclusion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General, for the Union of India/respondent No. 1. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent No. 4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, for the respondent No. 5. Though the arguments of the Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner have been heard by this Court at great extent nay the submissions have been made on behalf of few of the respondents, but meanwhile an application has been moved by respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 with the prayer that the matter should be referred to the Division Bench of this Court for deciding the question of law as mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of their application. This application has been resisted by Learned Sr. Counsel of the petitioner. I feel that not only the question of law, as has been formulated in paragraph No. 2 of this application dated 11-3-2015, but the entire controversy depicted in the matter is so intricate in itself that in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication, better the matter should be adjudicated by the Division Bench and, for that, Hon'ble Chief Justice is requested to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd determined by a Bench of two Judges. In the majority judgment, the Court has summed-up its conclusions. The Court took the view that an order of referring the case to the Division Bench is a judicial order and, though it is a discretionary order, there should be reasons. It is apposite to refer to para 20 of the said judgment as under : "20. In view of the above, it is contended before us that if an adjournment is a judicial order, it must contain reasons. There are some orders of reference where the only order is "adjourned to a Division Bench". There may be cases where there is a conflict of two or more decisions of single Judges of this Court with no decision of the Division Bench or of the Apex Court in the field. This would certainly justify a reference by a single Judge to a Division Bench. Secondly, there may be an important question of law of general or public importance affecting a large number of cases, as was the case referred to a Division Bench of this Court regarding the grant of Plus-Two-courses, (11th and 12th Standard), for the academic year 2000-2001. There were nearly 200 petitions involving a large number of students, parents, teachers, managements and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is some other weighty reasons, a reference would be unjustified. It would not be appropriate to catalogue an exhaustive list of situations. It may not be proper for a Single Judge to mechanically pass order, whether it is at the request of the parties or even suo motu, to refer the matter. A Single Judge is expected to deal with questions of fact and questions of law. If he deals with questions of fact and law and if he renders a judgment thereon, in cases provided by Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, an intra-court appeal may be maintainable. This is also a very precious right vouchsafed for the litigant. This aspect must also be borne in mind when the court decides to refer a matter to a Division Bench. 14. In this case, however, we notice that the Learned Single Judge has found that there is a question of law and it was found to be "so intricate in itself' and, for its proper adjudication, he felt it necessary to refer the matter to the Division Bench. In fact, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Learned Counsel appearing for the Excise Department, would submit that any decision on this will have far-reaching repercussions in regard to the implication of the notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restrictions." 17. Clause 3.5 provides that the Nodal Agency for routing the subsidies/incentives under various schemes under this policy will be notified separately. In clause 4, the Government reserved the right to modify any part of the policy in the interest of public. Thereafter, it is necessary to notice that, under Annexure-I, it deals with locations identified in the following Tehsil of the State of Uttaranchal for excise exemption under the new industrial policy for the State of Uttaranchal and the State of Himachal Pradesh. Under the State of Uttaranchal, in the second column against the district Nainital, we find that Ram Nagar is also mentioned. 18. Then, the next Notification is dated 8-1-2003 (Annexure No. 4). That purports to provide for central subsidy for industrial units. In that, there is reference to effective steps, substantial expansion and fixed capital investment. Apparently, it relates to admissible subsidy. 19. This was followed by the actual Notifications, two in number. Notification No. 49/2003 is dated 10-6-2003. It provides for exemption available to certain products. Then, on the same day, another Notification No. 50/2003 was issued, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Nos. 6, 7 & 8 have been referred to us by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to point out that they all fall in Ram Nagar. Reference is made to Northern Plywood, Arora Plywood and New India Match Co. and General Timber Product. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's unit also is a plywood unit; it is located in Ram Nagar; and it is located quite close to these units; but, what is conspicuous by its absence is its inclusion in khasra numbers and the unit of the petitioner in the said Notification under the heading "industrial activity in non-industrial area (with their expansion)". It is pointed out that Serial Nos. 13 to 34, under the second column, which relates to the actual units, it is left blank and they are barren lands; but they are, of course, located in Haldwani, which is a part of District Nainital. 21. The contentions, which have been addressed before us by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, are, essentially, that there was no rationale for not including the khasra numbers of the petitioner in the Notification and depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the Notification. Petitioner was an existing unit since 1986. With r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sra numbers. Thanking you. Encl : As above Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Sanjeev Chopra) Shri S. Jagadeesan, I.A.S. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industry & Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 110011" 22. Thereafter, the matter was again reiterated by communication dated 20-9-2004 (Annexure No. 24). It reads as follows : "To, Shri S. Jagadeesan, IAS Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. Subject : Correction/Amendment in the excise notification No. 50, dated 10-6-2004 issued by Govt. of India for the State of Uttaranchal. Dear Sir, You are aware that certain khasra numbers were left in the aforesaid notification either in existing Industrial Estates or Industrial activities in non-industrial Estates. When the said corrections were sent to GOI vide letter No. 707, dated 29-6-2004 for notification of amended list of khasra numbers, it was advised by DIPP, Government of India, to check up thoroughly the corrections, at the level of GOU and furnish a consolidated list of such corrections. In comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in regard to the contention that fraud would deprive the earlier judgment of its validity and force : (i) A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others v. Govt. of A.P. & Others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221. (ii) Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre v. Principal, VAV College of Arts & Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 108. (iii) M/s. Katwe Jaggery Traders, Hubli and etc. v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in AIR 1991 Karnataka 63. 25. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the earlier writ petition was also seeking prayer No. 2, as is sought in this writ petition; having regard to the disposal of the representation by rejecting the same, it furnished fresh cause of action and, therefore, the Court cannot be deterred from granting relief to the petitioner. It is petitioner's case that there was an interim order directing his representation to be considered. The Learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court : (i) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma & Another, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179. (ii) &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sanjeev Chopra, Secretary (Industrial Development), Govt., of Uttaranchal 4. Shri Alok Kumar, MD, SIDCUL, 5. Shri A.K. Singh, Chairman, CBEC, Ministry of Finance, 6. Shri Gautam Ray, JS (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, 7. Shri Sanjay Mitra, JS to PM The Principal Secretary to PM pointed out that the implementation of the Concessional Industrial Package for the State of Uttaranchal has run into serious procedural problems, due to inordinate delays in the issue of notifications by the Finance Ministry regarding amendments/modifications/ additions/deletions of 'Khasra' numbers recommended by the State Government in their notified Industrial Estates/Areas. The need for implifying the procedures relating to notifying Industrial Estates/Areas by the Ministry for the purpose of Excise and Income Tax exemptions and Capital Investment subsidies was emphasized. Principal Secretary to PM was of the view that if the total area in the notified industrial estate/capital industrial area does not change, then the Kh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quire minor corrections of Khasra Nos. which were erroneously notified due to typographical errors. It is certified that the proposed amendment to the notification will not result in a net increase in the area under notification. It is further certified that the area proposed for denotification has been examined and no industry is being setup in those areas, whose interests are likely to be adversely affected. As desired, I am also enclosing the soft copy of the amendments proposed in order to expedite the issuance of amended notification by Government of India. Thanking you Yours sincerely Sd/- (Alok Kumar) Additional Secretary Encl : 1- Proposed industrial Estates/Area Page 1-4 2- Corrections in the Notified Khasra Nos. Page 1-4 3- Floppy including File: List 1 and List 2.doc To, Shri Gautam Ray Joint Secretary Department of Revenue Govt., of India, New Delhi. CC Mrs. Renuka Kumar, Director, PMO Sd/- (Alok Kumar) Additional Secretary Not in Original CC : 1- Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He would also submit that it is not permissible to make the date 15-2-2005, mentioned in the Minutes within which date the Government was to give the list of eligible persons, as sacrosanct. He would try to establish this point with reference to a communication dated 13-12-2005 (Annexure No. 27) issued by the Secretary, Industrial Department, Government of Uttarakhand, to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. It reads as follows : "Sanjeev Chopra Industrial Development & IT Secretary Government of Uttaranchal Dehradun No. 503/PS/2005 Dated : 13 December, 2005 Dear Sir, 1. I would like to thank you for your and the visit of the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of Industrial Promotion & Policy), GOI to Dehradun and the guidance given for the industrial development of the State. 2. Apart from the various issues arisen in the meeting, the main issue was to notify the khasra numbers of the private industrial area declared by the Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on the captioned subject. I would like to thank you for the keen interest taken by the TRU to solve the issue. 2. In compliance of the decisions taken at the meeting dated February 4, 2005 in the PMO, the Government of Uttaranchal had forwarded the details of khasras to be exchanged to ensure proper planning of these estates vide our Letter No. F. No. 47/PS/2005, dated 15th February, 2005 and subsequent correspondence. We confirm that the changes in respect to these estates are final and no recommendation for any further changes will be made. 3. However, as the State Government continues to receive representations from Industry Associations, they shall be forwarded through the DIPP for appropriate action within the parameters of the CIP of Government of India for Uttaranchal and Himachal. I would like to reiterate that in this vital matter pertaining to Industrialization of a newly created Special Category State, to say the least, the same norms could be followed as for Himachal Pradesh, created decades ago. With warm regards. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (Sanjeev Chopra) Shri Alok Shukla Director (TRU) Room No. 146-G, North Block Deptt. of Revenue, Minis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have been dealt with in terms of another judgment passed by another Division Bench; whereas, in fact, it is pointed out by Mr. Shobhit Saharia that the parties therein had approached the Court earlier having made representations. It would not be open to the petitioner to raise any such contention. Having accepted the said judgment, petitioner did not seek to file any review of the judgment, as did the petitioner in Writ Petition (MB) No. 628 of 2005, following which the case of the petitioner was disposed of. It transpires that M/s. Sant Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., petitioner in Writ Petition (MB) No. 628 of 2005, preferred a review. That was dismissed as not pressed; but the Court, however, made it clear that it will not stand in the way of the petitioner challenging the decision on the representation. In this case, petitioner did not do anything of this sort and it must be treated as having accepted the judgment. 39. Even otherwise, petitioner's case does not commend itself for our acceptance. Government of India brought out a policy, undoubtedly, on 7-1-2003 for the State of Uttarakhand among other States. Under the said policy, a perusal of clause 3 would show that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecommended the case of the petitioner. It could not have been the understanding of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to Notification No. 50/2003, as, without an actual Notification being brought out, it is idle to contend that a mere recommendation by the State Government would suffice, in law, to claim the benefit. 40. An attempt was made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to draw benefit of the communication dated 8-1-2003 (Annexure No. 4) issued by the Government of India. We notice that the same related to the grant of capital subsidy. We also notice that the prayer as sought in the writ petition (prayer No. 2) clearly indicates that the petitioner does not claim the benefit of the policy dated 8-1-2003. Instead, what the petitioner claims is the benefit of Notification dated 7-1-2003, read with Notifications Nos. 49/2003 and 50/2003, dated 10-6-2003. The claim of the petitioner is, in fact, limited to Notification No. 50/2003. Therefore, we see considerable force in the contention of Mr. Shobhit Saharia that, when policy decision was taken on 7-1-2003, insofar as the petitioner does not come under any of the categories specifically enumerated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment in (2007) 14 SCC 108 appears to be on similar lines. The reason why the petitioner seeks to draw support from this judgment is that, in the earlier judgment rendered in the case of the petitioner, the official respondents withheld vital information in the form of the decision of the Government of India in February, 2005, as a result of which, the decision rendered by calling upon the Government to furnish reasons on the representation became an exercise in futility and a fait accompli. 44. We would think that the petitioner may not be justified in drawing support from the principles of fraud or misrepresentation. Even assuming that this information would have been available before the Court, we would ponder whether the decision would have been to the advantage of the petitioner. We have noticed that the Government of India, at the highest level, streamlined the grant of concessions in conjunction with the State Government and, what is more, the very same officer, who had written letters of recommendation in favour of the petitioner, both, before the amended Notification dated 19-5-2005 and afterwards on 13-12-2005, was also present and he, himself, has written a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er will be getting the benefit of the exemption notification. The petitioner company had accumulated its losses in the absence of the exemption and it had been declared as a sick unit and, finally, the Court found that the case turned on the plea of promissory estoppel. Therefore, we would think that the said judgment cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. 46. The judgment in State of Bihar & Others v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. & Others, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 31, relied on by the petitioner, cannot come to the assistance of the petitioner. Therein, it so transpired that a policy was enunciated for grant of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw material. Thereafter, in exercise of the power under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, the Government decided to deny the benefit. The Court took the view that it would not be open to the Government to issue a notification under Section 7, which would override the incentive policy. This also is a case, where the clear and unambiguous language in clause 10.4 of the exemption policy entitled the party therein to the benefit of the sales tax exemption. Here, in the facts of this case, petitioner, at no stage, was actually enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
